IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1281-d142477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptance of Food Technologies, Perceived Values and Consumers’ Expectations towards Bread. A Survey among Polish Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Sajdakowska

    (Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW-WULS), 159 C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Maria Królak

    (Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW-WULS), 159 C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Witold Zychowicz

    (Department of Agricultural and Forest Machinery, Faculty of Production Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (WULS-SGGW), 166 Nowoursynowska Street, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Marzena Jeżewska-Zychowicz

    (Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW-WULS), 159 C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-766 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The aims of the study were to identify the perceptions about the technologies that are used to increase the nutritional value of cereal products, and to evaluate relations between consumers’ perceptions of them, expected changes to bread, and the perceived values. Quantitative data was collected through computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) within a sample of 1000 Polish adults. Clustering method was used to identify homogeneous groups based on opinions on the technologies used in the production of cereals and cereal products. Neutral attitudes towards technologies were presented in the sample with relatively greater acceptance of traditional crossbreeding of varieties and enrichment processes. Nevertheless, three homogeneous clusters were identified: technological sceptics (33.6%), technological traditionalists (15.0%) and technological enthusiasts (51.4%). Technological traditionalists appreciated the naturalness of food, tradition, natural environment, quality of life and health more than the other clusters. Perceiving themselves as a person valuing tradition and quality of life was associated with belonging to the technological sceptics. Both sceptics and traditionalists declared greater fears resulting from the application of new technologies in food production, including threats to the environment, health, naturalness of food and quality of life. Technological enthusiasts were anticipating more changes in bread. The differences among the clusters, including perceived values, require communication that is adapted to the profile of the consumers. The results can be useful for bread manufacturers to predict the demand and deliver against it and for marketers who are responsible for the process of effective product labelling and communication in order to meet the consumer needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Sajdakowska & Maria Królak & Witold Zychowicz & Marzena Jeżewska-Zychowicz, 2018. "Acceptance of Food Technologies, Perceived Values and Consumers’ Expectations towards Bread. A Survey among Polish Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1281-:d:142477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1281/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1281/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Govindan, Kannan, 2018. "Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 419-431.
    2. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Xianbing Liu & Jie Yang & Sixiao Qu & Leina Wang & Tomohiro Shishime & Cunkuan Bao, 2012. "Sustainable Production: Practices and Determinant Factors of Green Supply Chain Management of Chinese Companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    5. Emilie Ginon & Youenn Lohéac & Christophe Louis Martin & Pierre Combris & Sylvie Issanchou, 2009. "Effect of fibre information on consumer willingness to pay for French baguettes," Post-Print halshs-00372807, HAL.
    6. Johannes J. Bauer, 2014. "Selection Errors of Random Route Samples," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 519-544, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Królak & Hanna Górska-Warsewicz & Magdalena Mądra-Sawicka & Krystyna Rejman & Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Julita Szlachciuk & Maksymilian Czeczotko & Bartosz Kwiatkowski & Robert Zaremba & Michał , 2022. "Towards Sustainable Innovation in the Bakery Sector—An Example of Fibre-Enriched Bread," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shivam Goyal & Dixit Garg & Sunil Luthra, 2021. "Sustainable production and consumption: analysing barriers and solutions for maintaining green tomorrow by using fuzzy-AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS hybrid framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16934-16980, November.
    2. Yue, Shen & Munir, Irfan Ullah & Hyder, Shabir & Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Qazi Abro, Muhammad Moinuddin & Zaman, Khalid, 2020. "Sustainable food production, forest biodiversity and mineral pricing: Interconnected global issues," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    4. Prajogo, Daniel & Toy, Jordan & Bhattacharya, Ananya & Oke, Adegoke & Cheng, T.C.E., 2018. "The relationships between information management, process management and operational performance: Internal and external contexts," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 95-103.
    5. Kentaka Aruga, 2017. "Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 677-690, October.
    6. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    7. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    8. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    9. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Jakob Keller & Martin Jung & Rainer Lasch, 2022. "Sustainability Governance: Insights from a Cocoa Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-23, August.
    12. Hariyani, Dharmendra & Mishra, Sanjeev & Hariyani, Poonam & Sharma, Milind Kumar, 2023. "Drivers and motives for sustainable manufacturing system," Innovation and Green Development, Elsevier, vol. 2(1).
    13. Menrad, Klaus & Gabriel, Andreas & Gylling, Morten, 2009. "Costs Of Co-Existence And Traceability Systems In The Food Industry In Germany And Denmark," Conference Papers 91301, University of Weihenstephan-Triesdorf, Straubing Centre of Science.
    14. Ran, Tao & Yue, Chengyan & Rihn, Alicia, 2015. "Are Grocery Shoppers of Households with Weight-Concerned Members Willing to Pay More for Nutritional Information on Food?," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Dominic Lemken & Mandy Knigge & Stephan Meyerding & Achim Spiller, 2017. "The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Żaneta Muranko & Catriona Tassell & Anouk Zeeuw van der Laan & Marco Aurisicchio, 2021. "Characterisation and Environmental Value Proposition of Reuse Models for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods: Reusable Packaging and Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-35, March.
    17. Jie Wu, 2015. "Differentiated Customer Pressures and Environmental Policies in China," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 175-189, March.
    18. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    19. Ali Saeed Almuflih & Janpriy Sharma & Mohit Tyagi & Arvind Bhardwaj & Mohamed Rafik Noor Mohamed Qureshi & Nawaf Khan, 2022. "Leveraging the Dynamics of Food Supply Chains towards Avenues of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1281-:d:142477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.